ErnestoJL
Well-known
Hi, Is there anyone out there using a Kodak Signet 35?
I got one as a gift from a customer who said "I bought it in a bunch of cameras from *bay... it didn´t cost me too much but I´m not collecting this type of stuff... Ok, it´s yours".
After some investigation, I found it was (or still is) a very interesting camera, just because of some curious facts about it´s design and some other conditions (price) and versions.
Besides I shot a test roll... and results were really good for such a simple and perhaps primitive camera.
OK, Is there anyone out there using a Kodak Signet 35?
Or I´m the only one....
Cheers
Ernesto
I got one as a gift from a customer who said "I bought it in a bunch of cameras from *bay... it didn´t cost me too much but I´m not collecting this type of stuff... Ok, it´s yours".
After some investigation, I found it was (or still is) a very interesting camera, just because of some curious facts about it´s design and some other conditions (price) and versions.
Besides I shot a test roll... and results were really good for such a simple and perhaps primitive camera.
OK, Is there anyone out there using a Kodak Signet 35?
Or I´m the only one....
Cheers
Ernesto
I've got a Kodak Signet 80, with the 1x viewfinder and interchangeable lens mount. It has the Ektanar lens. It is a "adequate" performing lens on a very interesting body. One of the easiest to use lens mounts that I've seen. Viewfinder is bright and crisp.
I believe your camera has the superior Ektar lens on it. The first two letters of the lens' serial number should give the year of manufacture.
I believe your camera has the superior Ektar lens on it. The first two letters of the lens' serial number should give the year of manufacture.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
Thaks for your answer Brian.
Nice camera you have, and quite interesting because it´s one of the few US made Kodak cameras having exchangeable lenses. The only other Kodak with that possibility was the 1941 Ektra.
I know the Ektar was (in fact is) a really good lens as it is an improved (coated and recalculated because of new glass types) Tessar design.
I was surprised when I made a comparison between the all Signet series models.
There was a big price difference regarding the Signet 35 against the other (suposedly superior) models. It was much more expensive. All this together with some interesting camera features forced me to investigate and I arrived to a conclusion:
It was designed as a military camera (that´s why it is that trong and well made) and at some time Kodad decided to market it for the amateurs.
It was designed to be used either with gloves or in areas where the environment was agressive to say the least. It is rugged as no other camera I´ve seen (the focusing helix rotates as the inner part of a ball bearing), the shutter body isnt made of brass´, instead, it seems to be low grade stainless steel and the shutter is so simple so as to be easy to be field repaired.
The body itself is a high grade aluminum casting precisely machined able to survive rough handling. Another surprise came seeing the film pressure plate. This is usually a black piece of metal, but this one is a highly polished steel piece and is bright, in fact is an almost perfect mirror.
Anyway, it works and film comes out perfectly exposed.
The exposure calculator in the back of the camera is accurate enough to get decently exposed negs up to ISO 200, of course if your judgemento of lighting is right.
Another interesting fact is that it was made also in two different versions, one in black for the USAF, and another in olive green for the US Army.
I think it was just the opposite, it was designed as a military all purpose camera and later Kodak decided to earn some money selling the unfinished (not yet fnished either black or green) cameras in the civilian market.
BTW, my Signet is as old as I am (RM xxxxxx) and the previous owner/user was a Sgt. whose name is almost erased from the label placed in the removable top half case.
Cheers and have Merry Xmas!
Ernesto
Nice camera you have, and quite interesting because it´s one of the few US made Kodak cameras having exchangeable lenses. The only other Kodak with that possibility was the 1941 Ektra.
I know the Ektar was (in fact is) a really good lens as it is an improved (coated and recalculated because of new glass types) Tessar design.
I was surprised when I made a comparison between the all Signet series models.
There was a big price difference regarding the Signet 35 against the other (suposedly superior) models. It was much more expensive. All this together with some interesting camera features forced me to investigate and I arrived to a conclusion:
It was designed as a military camera (that´s why it is that trong and well made) and at some time Kodad decided to market it for the amateurs.
It was designed to be used either with gloves or in areas where the environment was agressive to say the least. It is rugged as no other camera I´ve seen (the focusing helix rotates as the inner part of a ball bearing), the shutter body isnt made of brass´, instead, it seems to be low grade stainless steel and the shutter is so simple so as to be easy to be field repaired.
The body itself is a high grade aluminum casting precisely machined able to survive rough handling. Another surprise came seeing the film pressure plate. This is usually a black piece of metal, but this one is a highly polished steel piece and is bright, in fact is an almost perfect mirror.
Anyway, it works and film comes out perfectly exposed.
The exposure calculator in the back of the camera is accurate enough to get decently exposed negs up to ISO 200, of course if your judgemento of lighting is right.
Another interesting fact is that it was made also in two different versions, one in black for the USAF, and another in olive green for the US Army.
I think it was just the opposite, it was designed as a military all purpose camera and later Kodak decided to earn some money selling the unfinished (not yet fnished either black or green) cameras in the civilian market.
BTW, my Signet is as old as I am (RM xxxxxx) and the previous owner/user was a Sgt. whose name is almost erased from the label placed in the removable top half case.
Cheers and have Merry Xmas!
Ernesto
bob338
Well-known
i have been using one of these signet 35s for about three years and love it. it's built like a tank, has a super sharp lens, is easy to use and it fits easily into a pocket. i'm surprised how cheaply they sell on ebay.
any time i don't feel like dragging around my m2, i grab the signet or a vito b.
any time i don't feel like dragging around my m2, i grab the signet or a vito b.
OldNick
Well-known
Early in my employment with a USAF contractor, we had a need to photograph some thread tufts inside a large wind tunnel to investigate an airflow problem. I used a USAF Signet and flashbulbs to get the job done. It was certainly up to any application that the military called on it to perform.
Jim N.
Jim N.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
Another strange fact is that the Signet 35 can focus down to a little less than 2 ft. (about 550mm), sometihng not usually found on ANY RF.
Thanks to you all....now I know I´m not the only one...!
Cheers
Ernesto
Thanks to you all....now I know I´m not the only one...!
Cheers
Ernesto
68degrees
Well-known
my lens serial number is RE14820 what year was it made?
furcafe
Veteran
Use the acronym CAMEROSITY, w/the "C" standing for 1, "A" for 2, etc.
Your lens was made in '53.
Your lens was made in '53.
68degrees
Well-known
You mean 54 right?
furcafe
Veteran
L David Tomei
Well-known
I have an Air Force black version and after some cleaning and lube of the helicals, it works fine. Many complain about the 300 shutter as a weak point in an otherwise excellent design. I haven't encountered any problems with the shutter following a basic cleaning but then I've only run 2 rolls through it so my experience isn't statistically significant yet. David